In March, Cohen provided Buzzfeed with his passport, showing he had never traveled to the areas the report said he had.
Would it though?
My passport doesn't show my visit to the Soviet Union. Unlike other countries that stamped my passport, the Soviet embassy stapled a couple pieces of paper to it. One was torn off going in, and the other going out.
Dunno if Russia kept the same procedure as its old empire, but it seems plausible.
> to someone that most people think is a terrorist
AKA a kid who was caught in the crossfire of a military attack on his village because his father dropped him into a war zone and left him there. A kid who *may* have fought back - even the American soldiers present disagree on this - but if so that would make him a soldier, not a terrorist. And a child soldier at that.
Napolitano is the one who made the "deep state" allegations that Obama had the NSA and GCHQ spy on Trump's phone calls. Which the White House Press Secretary quickly parroted, and Trump has been repeating ever since.
Suppose you make a true claim - in America - that "Bob is a bed wetter." You could still be successfully sued. For "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", not defamation. Or suppose Bob is taking too much aspirin. You make the technically true claim that Bob is abusing drugs. In some US states you could be sued for 'False Light." In both cases you've made a true statement, but it'll still cost you. There are other examples.
It's not that those other countries have "pretzel logic" any more than the US. It's that their legal systems evolved differently and it's hard to make a direct comparison. They may have other protections that the US does not.
If you don’t start cracking down on this obvious crime against humanity, which is what I believe _____ is, I think you’re going to see much, much broader legislation to deal with the internet.
Someone's been spending too much time with copyright lobbyists.
Re: Re: Section 230 of the CDA is not the whole of the law.
Twitter isn't trying to control Chuck Johnson's speech.
They're asserting their own right not to be associated with it or be a platform for it. The right to free speech does not include the right to force others to listen or act as messenger.
On May 24, 2015, Johnson sent a tweet asking his followers for donations to help him "take out" Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson. McKesson shared the tweet and took the tweet as a threat. Johnson was permanently banned from Twitter after several users reported him for harassment.
He's also repeatedly used Twitter and other social media to publicly identify the wrong person as responsible for horrible crimes, targeting them for harassment. And he was previously suspended from Twitter twice for publishing the addresses of the two Dallas nurses who contracted Ebola.
Essentially, if you refuse to cooperate, you can be disappeared by CBP until you agree to cooperate.
And as a foreigner, you have no right to a lawyer.
Even if you fully cooperate, if you didn't tell them what they want to hear they can ship you to a third country to be tortured until you "confess." At least that's what the old INS could (and did) do before the CBP inherited their duties.
Do they think terrorists are as stupid as the NSA and will leave their tools exposed where they can be found?
Careful there. There have been recent terrorist incidents where US politicians tried to paint encryption as a terrorist tool. It's later shown that the terrorists didn't have anything of value on their phones, or were coordinating using ordinary unencrypted SMS messages.
Plus it seems likely that American intelligence agencies have a different goal: Rather than just a database of everyone's identities, they want a database of who knows and communicates with who. By vacuuming up everyone's email and social media contact lists, they can build a database of connections.
After a terrorist incident or anti-corporate protest, they can check for connections between the those responsible and anyone else. And put everyone one, two or three steps out on the no-fly list.
Its ability to access devices carried by Americans is only slightly more limited.
Introduce hard limits, and what happens next is predictable:
The US has agreements with other countries so that when an American shows his passport to enter a third country, the US is notified. That way an American can't visit Cuba via Canada without the US knowing.
If the US can't image Americans' cell phones when they re-enter the country, they'll demand that other countries image them - and send the contents to American authorities - when Americans arrive.
Americans will be the foreigners, so they won't have any more right to refuse than foreigners showing up at American borders.
Re: Re: "Huawei has helped Google build its own smartphones"; not unfounded suspicions, then.
Also I apply this phrase to Techdirt's many "Trump-Russia collusion" pieces: "multi-year investigations found absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion.
American spying pretty much demands a response in kind, which the Chinese can do with similar hardware and methods.
It's not merely the obvious conclusion that they would do it. It's that the demand is so great that it becomes a competence test. We wouldn't want to trust our critical infrastructure to someone too incompetent to meet that challenge.
On the post: Trump's Personal Lawyer Sues Buzzfeed For Publishing Allegedly False Statements Written By Someone Else
Re:
On the post: Trump's Personal Lawyer Sues Buzzfeed For Publishing Allegedly False Statements Written By Someone Else
Would it though?
My passport doesn't show my visit to the Soviet Union. Unlike other countries that stamped my passport, the Soviet embassy stapled a couple pieces of paper to it. One was torn off going in, and the other going out.
Dunno if Russia kept the same procedure as its old empire, but it seems plausible.
On the post: FBI Says Device Encryption Is 'Evil' And A Threat To Public Safety
Re: Face It
You can ignore Face ID and continue to use a password just like you could with Touch ID.
On the post: For The Second Time In A Week, German Hate Speech Laws Results In Deletion Of Innocent Speech
Re: Best learning tool ever
On the post: Why Are The People Who Whined About Wheeler's Net Neutrality Rules Being '400 Pages' Silent About Pai's Being '539 Pages'
Re: Re: Re:
Fire and Fury has been released as an audio book?
On the post: Why Are The People Who Whined About Wheeler's Net Neutrality Rules Being '400 Pages' Silent About Pai's Being '539 Pages'
IOKIYAR
See also...
On the post: Senator Portman Promises To Pass Bills To Harm Tech Companies If They Won't Support SESTA
Re: You know what is rousing
AKA a kid who was caught in the crossfire of a military attack on his village because his father dropped him into a war zone and left him there. A kid who *may* have fought back - even the American soldiers present disagree on this - but if so that would make him a soldier, not a terrorist. And a child soldier at that.
On the post: Trump Doesn't Understand Surveillance Powers; House Votes To Give Him More Of It
Re: Besties?
On the post: Psychiatrist Sues A Bunch Of Redditors For Criticizing His Therapy Services
Re: Re:
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it...
Suppose you make a true claim - in America - that "Bob is a bed wetter." You could still be successfully sued. For "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", not defamation. Or suppose Bob is taking too much aspirin. You make the technically true claim that Bob is abusing drugs. In some US states you could be sued for 'False Light." In both cases you've made a true statement, but it'll still cost you. There are other examples.
It's not that those other countries have "pretzel logic" any more than the US. It's that their legal systems evolved differently and it's hard to make a direct comparison. They may have other protections that the US does not.
On the post: Senator Portman Promises To Pass Bills To Harm Tech Companies If They Won't Support SESTA
Someone's been spending too much time with copyright lobbyists.
On the post: Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube
Re: Re: Section 230 of the CDA is not the whole of the law.
They're asserting their own right not to be associated with it or be a platform for it. The right to free speech does not include the right to force others to listen or act as messenger.
On the post: Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube
Re: Well!
On the post: Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube
Wikipedia: Charles C. Johnson: Banning from Twitter
He's also repeatedly used Twitter and other social media to publicly identify the wrong person as responsible for horrible crimes, targeting them for harassment. And he was previously suspended from Twitter twice for publishing the addresses of the two Dallas nurses who contracted Ebola.
On the post: Psychiatrist Sues A Bunch Of Redditors For Criticizing His Therapy Services
Blessed are they who can just read it and move on.
On the post: CBP Warrantless Device Searches Continue To Increase And New DHS Guidance Isn't Going To Bring That Number Down
Re: Re:
And as a foreigner, you have no right to a lawyer.
Even if you fully cooperate, if you didn't tell them what they want to hear they can ship you to a third country to be tortured until you "confess." At least that's what the old INS could (and did) do before the CBP inherited their duties.
On the post: Trump's New Rural Broadband Executive Order Doesn't Actually Do Much Of Anything
But that's certainly not what his handlers have told him.
On the post: CBP Warrantless Device Searches Continue To Increase And New DHS Guidance Isn't Going To Bring That Number Down
Re:
Careful there. There have been recent terrorist incidents where US politicians tried to paint encryption as a terrorist tool. It's later shown that the terrorists didn't have anything of value on their phones, or were coordinating using ordinary unencrypted SMS messages.
Plus it seems likely that American intelligence agencies have a different goal: Rather than just a database of everyone's identities, they want a database of who knows and communicates with who. By vacuuming up everyone's email and social media contact lists, they can build a database of connections.
After a terrorist incident or anti-corporate protest, they can check for connections between the those responsible and anyone else. And put everyone one, two or three steps out on the no-fly list.
On the post: CBP Warrantless Device Searches Continue To Increase And New DHS Guidance Isn't Going To Bring That Number Down
Introduce hard limits, and what happens next is predictable:
The US has agreements with other countries so that when an American shows his passport to enter a third country, the US is notified. That way an American can't visit Cuba via Canada without the US knowing.
If the US can't image Americans' cell phones when they re-enter the country, they'll demand that other countries image them - and send the contents to American authorities - when Americans arrive.
Americans will be the foreigners, so they won't have any more right to refuse than foreigners showing up at American borders.
On the post: AT&T, Huawei Phone Partnership Killed At Last Second By More Unproven Accusations Of Huawei Spying
Re: Re: "Huawei has helped Google build its own smartphones"; not unfounded suspicions, then.
Wikipedia: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
128 citations.
Wikipedia: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
389 citations.
Same delusional claim, same response. But at least it was the more coherent part of your post.
On the post: AT&T, Huawei Phone Partnership Killed At Last Second By More Unproven Accusations Of Huawei Spying
Re:
There's more to it than hypocrisy.
American spying pretty much demands a response in kind, which the Chinese can do with similar hardware and methods.
It's not merely the obvious conclusion that they would do it. It's that the demand is so great that it becomes a competence test. We wouldn't want to trust our critical infrastructure to someone too incompetent to meet that challenge.
Next >>